Here's the documentation for Inno Setup Preprocessor: #expr and this one is for Inno Setup Preprocessor: Preprocessor output.
Why would we want to use the #expr directive?
I believe the #expr documentation explicitly mentions, why would you use the directive:
This directive is intended to be used with functions that produce side effects and do not return any significant value.
The documentation also shows a practical example of that:
#expr SaveToFile(...)
It seems that you do not know, what a side effect it. Check the Wikipedia article on Side effect (computer science) (emphasis mine):
Function ... is said to have a side effect if it modifies some state variable value(s) outside its local environment, that is to say has an observable effect besides returning a value (the main effect) to the invoker of the operation.
In the case of the SaveToFile function, the side effect is the saving of the function parameter to a file. This particular function does not even return anything. So it would be safe to use it with the #emit directive:
#emit SaveToFile(...)
It would still save the file. And as the function "returns" void, it won't emit anything (though it actually emits an empty line, but that's in most cases ignored by Inno Setup). But it's confusing to use #emit, as a reader of the code might expect the function actually does return (and consequently emit) something. Use of the #expr explicitly shows that the expression (and whole directive) has no effect on the script contents.
And with expressions/functions that do return something, like with ForceDirectories or Exec, you have to use #expr. Of course, it makes sense only in case you do not bother checking the results.
#expr ForceDirectories(Path)
With #emit, the function would emit its result, what would result in an invalid script.
Another way to do, what #expr does, is using the #emit with a comma operator with void second parameter:
#emit ForceDirectories(Path), void
Though again, this emits an empty line. And it's less obvious, what you want to do, than with the #expr.
Related
I've been searching the documentation for a long time and still can't figure this out.
In the SCons documentation, there is discussion about adding a PreAction or PostAction. In the examples, they call an example method:
foo = Program('foo.c')
AddPreAction(foo, 'pre_action')
This calls 'pre_action' before 'foo.c' is compiled and linked. However, there is no explanation about what format 'pre_action' must take.
I have discovered that there are several pre-built actions, such as 'Copy'. However, I cannot find the source of 'Copy' to reverse-engineer it and write my own.
Can anyone point me to a guide as to how to create my own Actions? I either need an interface for calling my own method such as 'pre_action' above, or a guide for writing an Action class.
Really, even just some example code that is actually complete enough to use would be helpful...
The manpage section Action Objects lists the types of things that can be passed to the Action factory function to create an action; that is also what you pass to AddPostAction and AddPreAction as the second argument - that is, either an Action already made by a previous call to Action, or something that can be converted into one like a command string, or a list of such, or a function with appropriate signature. Pre/Post will simply call the Action function with that argument. So in that section, where there's an example with a call to Action, you could just plug that argument into AddPreAction, or you could save the result of calling Action and give that as the argument to AddPreAction.
The amount of flexibility here makes it a little tricky to document concisely.
(btw the source to Copy is a function called copy_func but you probably don't want to use that form because it's a couple of extra levels of abstraction you won't need)
I have some mql5 code which I want to print debug messages if the DEBUG macro is set. I would like to use a different function (DebugPrint for that matter) for those debug messages. My first attempt was to create a regular function, but variable arguments don't seem to work. I then tried to use the precompiler to remove the DebugPrint-calls based on this answer, however the compiler's pre-processor doesn't seem to understand the variable argument list either. This is the code I tried:
#ifdef DEBUG
#define DebugPrint(...)
#else
#define DebugPrint(...) Print(__VA_ARGS__)
#endif
Any ideas on how to achieve what I'm trying to do?
My few cents on MQL4/5:
Preprocessor directives:
while the revised New-MQL4.56789 compiler has opened some new, more complex constructs for #define preprocessor directives syntax, I have almost always burnt my fingers when trying to use them in production code.
Variadic arguments:
MQL4/5 is a strong-typed, compiled language and as such does not provide means for variadic functions. With some recent syntax aids, coming from ( OOP ) Class-based function ( method ) call-interface overrides and maybe using some advanced abstractions from so called function-template-s, there are chances to create some sort of syntax-support for your #define-dependent behaviour.
Function Overloading,template-sandtypename-dependent actions:
Whereas these techniques have brought even more "New" compiler features into the MQL4/5 software domain, the additional levels of complexity do not justify the efforts, given the resulting principles are restricted from being usable in cases where their use is restricted from export, virtual or #import constructs.
So how to make this work?
Well, for the sake of the rapid & iterative development needs, one may resort to an "almost-variadic" PrintFormat( DEBUG_MASK, ..., ..., ... ); using a context-full (known) matching set of attributes against a static, context-specific #define-ed DEBUG_MASK. Nested construction of FormatString( MASK_A, par1, par2[, FormatString( MASK_B, par3, par4[, FormatString( ... )[, ... ] )[, ... ]) are left for one's own kind imagination.
My program, PKGDAYMONR has the control option:
ctl-opt Main( CheckDailyPackages )
The CheckDailyPackages procedure has the following PI:
dcl-pi *n ExtPgm( 'PGMNAME' );
As you can see the ExtPgm parameter is not the name of the program. In fact, it’s what came over in the template source and I forgot to change it. Despite the wrong name in ExtPgm, the program runs without a problem.
If I remove that parameter and leave the keyword as just ExtPgm, I get the following message:
RNF3573: A parameter is required for the EXTPGM keyword when the
procedure name is longer than 10.
If I drop ExtPgm from the Procedure Interface altogether, it also complains:
RNF3834: EXTPGM must be specified on the prototype for the MAIN()
procedure.
So why is it that I have to specify a parameter if it doesn't matter what value I enter?
O/S level: IBM i 7.2
Probably worth pursuing as a defect with the service provider; presumably for most, that would be IBM rather than a third-party, as they would have to contact IBM anyhow, given the perceived issue is clearly with their compiler. Beyond that, as my "Answer", I offer some thoughts:
IMO, and in apparent agreement with the OP, naming the ExtPgm seems pointless in the given scenario. I think the compiler is confused while trying to enforce some requirements in validations of the implicitly generated Prototype for the linear-main for which only a Procedure Interface is supplied; i.e. enforcing requirements that are appropriate for an explicit Prototype, but requirements that could be overlooked [thus are no longer requirements] in the given scenario.? I am suggesting that while the RNF3573 would seem appropriate for diagnosing EXTPGM specifications of an explicit Prototype, IMO that same effect is inappropriate [i.e. the validation should not be performed] for an implicit prototype that was generated by the compiler.
FWiW: Was the fixed-format equivalent of that free-form code tested, to see if the same or a different error was the effect? The following source code currently includes the EXTPGM specification with 'PGMNAME' as the argument [i.e. supplying any bogus value of 10-byte naming to supplicate the compiler, just as is being done in the scenario of the OP, solely to effect a successful compile], but could be compiled with the other variations with changes to the source, mimicking what was done with free-form variations, to test if the same\consistent validations and errors are the effect:
- just EXTPGM keyword coded (w/out argument); is RNF3573 the effect?
- the EXTPGM keyword could be omitted; is RNF3834 the effect?
- the D-spec removed entirely (if there are no parameters defined); ¿that was not one of the variations noted in the OP as being tried, so... the effect?
H MAIN(CheckDailyPackages)
*--------------------------------------------------
* Program name: CheckDailyPackages (PGMNAME)
*--------------------------------------------------
P CheckDailyPackages...
P B
D PI EXTPGM('PGMNAME')
/free
// Work is done here
/end-free
P CheckDailyPackages...
P E
I got a response from IBM and essentially Biswa was on to something, it simply wasn't clear (in my opinion) about the answer.
Essentially the EXTPGM is required on long Main procedure names in order to support recursive program calls.
This is the response I received from IBM explaining the reason for the scenario:
The incorrect EXTPGM would only matter if there was a call to the main
procedure (the program) within the module.
When the compiler processes the procedure interface, it doesn't know
whether there might be a call that appears later in the module.
EXTPGM keyword is used to define the external name of the program which you want to prototype. If you mention the EXTPGM then the program will be called dynamically.
Let us take an example in order to explain your query.
PGMA
D cmdExc PR ExtPgm('QSYS/QCMDEXC')
D 200A const
D 15P05 const
c callp cmdExc('CLRPFM LIB1/PF1':200)
C Eval *INLR = *ON
In the above example CmdExc used for the dynamic call to QSYS/QCMDEXC.
When we use the same program name as the EXTPGM parameter it acts as an entry point to the program when called from other programs or procedure.
But in any case when we mention any name as the sample parameter the EXTPGM will not give any error in compilation, but it gives the error during run time as it tries to resolve the name during run time.
I tried calling a procedure from the AfterInstall method in Inno setup, but it gives me a syntax error. The section {code:GetShortName|{app}} is taken litterally. I tries using ExpandConstant, but I have the same error, the + operator does not seem to be liked there. I tried passing the whole thing in the ExpandConstant, but instead I get an error at runtime:
"Internal error: Expression error 'Script error: Could not call proc.'".
Source: "InputFiles\prog.exe";
DestDir: "{tmp}/" ;
AfterInstall: ExecuteCommand('{tmp}\prog.exe', '--distribute ' + ExpandConstant('{code:GetShortName|{app}}') + '/{#SandboxInternalFolder}')
How can I use the code and constant at this location?
The parser for parameters for AfterInstall values is fairly primitive -- it can only cope with single values or a single string value wrapped in an ExpandConstant call. You cannot use any expressions or other function calls.
There's still a way to write that particular construction though, due to the way that ExpandConstant works:
AfterInstall: ExecuteCommand(ExpandConstant('{tmp}\prog.exe'), ExpandConstant('--distribute {code:GetShortName|{app}}\{#SandboxInternalFolder}'))
Having said that, unless there's a really compelling reason to pass all that in as parameters, you should just specify a simple procedure name and do whatever you want in there directly. And that way you can avoid expanding the code constant -- you can just call GetShortName directly too.
I am developing an application in C / Objective-C (No C++ please, I already have a solution there), and I came across an interesting use case.
Because clang does not support nested functions, my original approach will not work:
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR(Type, Name, Dflt) static Type Name; __attribute__((constructor)) void static_ ## Type ## _ ## Name ## _init_var(void) { /* loading code here */ }
This code would compile fine with GCC, but because clang doesn't support nested functions, I get a compile error:
Expected ';' at end of declaration.
So, I found a solution that works for Clang on variables inside a function:
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR_LOCAL(Type, Name, Dflt) static Type Name; ^{ /* loading code here */ }(); // anonymous block usage
However, I was wondering if there was a way to leverage macro concatenation to choose the appropriate one for the situation, something like:
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR_GLOBAL(Type, Name, Dflt) static Type Name; __attribute__((constructor)) void static_ ## Type ## _ ## Name ## _init_var(void) { /* loading code here */ }
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR_LOCAL(Type, Name, Dflt) static Type Name; ^{ /* loading code here */ }(); // anonymous block usage
#define SCOPE_CHOOSER LOCAL || GLOBAL
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR(Type, Name, DFLT) CREATE_STATIC_VAR_ ## SCOPE_CHOOSER(Type, Name, Dflt)
Obviously, the ending implementation doesn't have to be exactly that, but something similar will suffice.
I have attempted to use __builtin_constant_p with __func__, but because __func__ is not a compile-time constant, that wasn't working.
I have also tried to use __builtin_choose_expr, but that doesn't appear to work at the global scope.
Is there something else I am missing in the docs? Seems like this should be something fairly easy to do, and yet, I cannot seem to figure it out.
Note: I am aware that I could simply type CREATE_STATIC_VAR_GLOBAL or CREATE_STATIC_VAR_LOCAL instead of messing with macro concatenation, but this is me attempting to push the limits of the compiler. I am also aware that I could use C++ and get this over with right away, but that's not my goal here.
#define SCOPE_CHOOSER LOCAL || GLOBAL
#define CREATE_STATIC_VAR(Type, Name, DFLT) CREATE_STATIC_VAR_ ## SCOPE_CHOOSER(Type, Name, Dflt)
The biggest difficulty here is that the C preprocessor works by textual substitution, so even if you figured out how to get SCOPE_CHOOSER to do what you want, you'd end up with a macro expansion that looked something like
CREATE_STATIC_VAR_LOCAL || GLOBAL(Type, Name, Dflt);
There's no way to get the preprocessor to "constant-fold" macro expansions during substitution; the only time things are "folded" is when they appear in #if expressions. So your only hope (modulo slight handwaving) is to find a single construction that will work both inside and outside of a function.
Can you explain more about the ultimate goal here? I don't think you can load the variable's initial value with __attribute__((constructor)), but maybe there's a way to load the initial value the first time the function body is entered... or register all the addresses of these variables into a global list at compile-time and have a single __attribute__((constructor)) function that traverses that list... or some mishmash of those approaches. I don't have any specific ideas in mind, but maybe if you give more information something will emerge.
EDIT: I don't think this helps you either, since it's not a preprocessor trick, but here is a constant-expression that will evaluate to 0 at function scope and 1 at global scope.
#define AT_GLOBAL_SCOPE __builtin_types_compatible_p(const char (*)[1], __typeof__(&__func__))
However, notice that I said "evaluate" and not "expand". These constructs are compile-time, not preprocessing-time.
Inspired by the #Qxuuplusone answer.
The suggested macro for AT_GLOBAL_SCOPE does indeed work (in GCC), but causes a compiler warning (and I am pretty sure it cannot be silenced by Diagnostic Pragma because it's created by pedwarn with a test here).
Unless you turn on -w you will always see these warnings and have, in the back of your mind, a horrible feeling that you probably shouldn't be doing whatever it is that you are doing.
Fortunately, there is a solution that can silence these lingering doubts.
In the Other Builtins section, there is __builtin_FUNCTION with this very interesting description (emphasis mine):
This function is the equivalent of the __FUNCTION__ symbol and returns an address constant pointing to the name of the function from which the built-in was invoked, or the empty string if the invocation is not at function scope.
It turns out, at least in version 8.3 of GCC, you can do this:
#define AT_GLOBAL_SCOPE (__builtin_FUNCTION()[0] == '\0')
This still probably won't answer the original question, but until GCC decides this too will cause a warning (it kind of seems like it's intentionally designed not to though), it lets me continue doing questionable things using macros without anything to warn me that it's a bad idea.